If Cameron had perfected this 3D animation, he could have rendered all of the characters, humans and Navi, in CG and just use vocal talent. But he didn't, and that's because he, like everyone else, hasn't really beaten the uncanny valley.

And the prohibitive costs of making Avatar will ensure that these so-called advancements will only be useful for making sci-fi/fantasy blockbuster movies. What, are we going to see high-brow intellectual fare animated in 3D in the future? The latest low-brow rom-com? I thought not.

As for "real environs", what does that even mean? Are you telling me that a sound stage without a green screen is a "real" environment? Perhaps you're just in favor of shooting everything on location? Even period pieces? Do you own a time machine? If so, do you ever use it? If so, do you look towards the past or the future? If it's the future, do I ever get banned for calling you an idiot?

Real environs can involve building props and sets out of real material. That's how they used to do it. Costumes, too. Those are real, not rendered.

As a photographer, I think you need to realize that in today's industry, if you are a photographer with no digital post skills, you are irrelevant (there are a few exceptions, of course).

I'm a photographer, and I do use digital post-processing. What I'm referring to are people who manufacture whole images entirely using just photoshop and other images. I'm even saying that this is not artistic or unskilled. I'm posing the question for you to think about for yourself. What do you value more? I didn't say one way or the other which is better.

Maybe you'll one day remember, or perhaps learn for the first time, that what you seek out and enjoy most in a theater, or from a book, or from an album is not necessarily what others look for.

As for "real environs", what does that even mean? Are you telling me that a sound stage without a green screen is a "real" environment? Perhaps you're just in favor of shooting everything on location? Even period pieces? Do you own a time machine? If so, do you ever use it? If so, do you look towards the past or the future? If it's the future, do I ever get banned for calling you an idiot?

Speaking of the uncanny valley, GibsonExplorer, which valley do you think is bigger, that between a stop-motion filmed animatronic puppet and reality or that between a state of the art CG animation and reality?

I'm a photographer, and I do use digital post-processing. What I'm referring to are people who manufacture whole images entirely using just photoshop and other images. I'm even saying that this is not artistic or unskilled. I'm posing the question for you to think about for yourself. What do you value more? I didn't say one way or the other which is better.

While I appreciate the aesthetics of shot-in-camera, processed in the darkroom film, I dont see how that lessens the artistic merits of photo montage style digital processing. I dont understand why you posed the question, if not to make a statement about digital being the lesser of the two.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GibsonExplorer

If Cameron had perfected this 3D animation, he could have rendered all of the characters, humans and Navi, in CG and just use vocal talent. But he didn't, and that's because he, like everyone else, hasn't really beaten the uncanny valley.

Why would he want to mocap real people, render them in CG, and painstakingly rig and animate their faces and bodies, only to make them look the exact same way they already do?